[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Wed 17 Jan 2001 02:59:44 MET
Here's roughtly how E2 (everything2) organises reviews - don't flame me for not
getting the details right:
- everyone can submit however many 'articles' they like;
- depending on how many submissions you've made, and how they are rated, you
get a status (like 'novice' 'apprentice' 'monk' whatever).
- the higher your status the more you can 'do' in terms of reviewing others.
- e2 keeps a list of 'new submissions', so 'old guys' usually check out the new
submissions, and quickly quote 'em. If it's a really good submission it gets
'colled' (which is, like being /.-ed, kinda cool).
- any submission that gets too many negative reviews is dumped
- high priests have the 'power' to dump anything they don't like
The result is something organic and self-cleaning. I think this is not a bad
model, altough at e2 'articles' only survive if they are 'like the others' - I
mean, e2 has organically, as a community, developed a certain 'flavour', and
you either like it or not, and if your 'taste' differs from the community's,
your stuff does not survive. That would be something GnuPedia should avoid, I
BTW: I actually use e2 as a dictionary and as an encyclopedia - every entry out
of Webster's dictionary can be found on it. The trouble with e2 as an
encyclopedia is that it contains too much 'junk', like "izzy wizzy let's get
dizzy" (on today's e2 opening page). Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of e2,
but I would really want something 'cleaner' and more 'encyclopedia-like'.
- [Bug-gnupedia](no subject),
Tom Tollenaere <=